(April 25, 2014 at 3:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why not just let people be free instead of trying to impose your morality on them?

That is quite ironic coming from a theist whose veritable mission it is to ensure by his faith that others are denied the rights they deserve.

(April 25, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 3:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why not just let people be free instead of trying to impose your morality on them?

That is quite ironic coming from a theist whose veritable mission it is to ensure by his faith that others are denied the rights they deserve.

What exactly is my faith Kitanetos?

My faith is individual freedom and I oppose people like you who try to thrust your morality onto others.

I put Heywood on my ignore list, and I'm so glad that I did now, because of this thread!

(April 25, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: What exactly is my faith Kitanetos?

Of the theistic variety.

(April 25, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: My faith is individual freedom and I oppose people like you who try to thrust your morality onto others.

Then you support same-sex marriage?

(April 25, 2014 at 3:22 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: What exactly is my faith Kitanetos?

Of the theistic variety.

(April 25, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: My faith is individual freedom and I oppose people like you who try to thrust your morality onto others.

Then you support same-sex marriage?

I support the right for one man to call another man his spouse. I also support the right of the next man to not recognize or endorse the gay marriage.

I'm curious why the discussion developed this way, since the article is apparently about how a Christian group is seeking to use a mobile app to more effectively rally support, in the same way that they feel opposition forces use technology to pressure businesses who do not "support the gay lifestyle." This is hardly a big deal, really. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with using laws to force acceptance of a lifestyle or belief, as much as allowing people to more efficiently use public pressure (boycotts, lobbying campaigns) to achieve (or resist) change.

(April 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm)Tonus Wrote: I'm curious why the discussion developed this way, since the article is apparently about how a Christian group is seeking to use a mobile app to more effectively rally support, in the same way that they feel opposition forces use technology to pressure businesses who do not "support the gay lifestyle." This is hardly a big deal, really. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with using laws to force acceptance of a lifestyle or belief, as much as allowing people to more efficiently use public pressure (boycotts, lobbying campaigns) to achieve (or resist) change.

One side is in denial that they are trying to impose their morality on the other.

(April 25, 2014 at 3:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: I support the right for one man to call another man his spouse.

(April 25, 2014 at 3:04 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm)Losty Wrote: Hmm I have to agree with you on this sort of. But it's not the LGBT community. It's the entire left side and some of the right side. And it is done so rightfully in my opinion. No is asking them to approve of homosexuality. No one gives a rats ass if you approve or not. But if you are actively working against equal rights in the US, you deserve to be publicly shamed and ostracized.

The only way to maximize equal rights for everyone is give people the freedom to choose.

Suppose you are a photographer who hates catholics(perhaps some catholic priest molested you). Should you be allowed to choose not to photograph catholic weddings? Hell yes. However now if you're such a photographer you have to worry about being sued.....which is silly.

Why not just let people be free instead of trying to impose your morality on them?

I don't think you got what I was saying. I don't think they should be legally required to serve anyone regardless of their reasoning. I don't think they should be sued. I wouldn't want their homophobe cake at my wedding anyways. My point is that just as they should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals. All non-bigots should have the right to call them out for it, shame them, and boycott them.

I don't see what you mean about imposing my morals on anyone though. If I had a business and was required to serve everyone. I would not somehow have their morals imposed on me. Selling someone a block of cheese doesn't mean you're accepting their morals as your own it just means you're profiting off their love of cheese. Morals have nothing to do with it.

---

(April 25, 2014 at 3:32 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm)Tonus Wrote: I'm curious why the discussion developed this way, since the article is apparently about how a Christian group is seeking to use a mobile app to more effectively rally support, in the same way that they feel opposition forces use technology to pressure businesses who do not "support the gay lifestyle." This is hardly a big deal, really. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with using laws to force acceptance of a lifestyle or belief, as much as allowing people to more efficiently use public pressure (boycotts, lobbying campaigns) to achieve (or resist) change.

One side is in denial that they are trying to impose their morality on the other.

Wrong. Both sides are in denial that they're trying to impose their morals on the other.

(April 25, 2014 at 3:36 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 3:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: I support the right for one man to call another man his spouse.

You left out the part about the next man's right....which is essentially your error. You only see one perspective. You only see one person's rights and ignore the others.